Digital radio listening DROPS in Q3!
DAB sounds worse than FM
Digital TV take-up apparently rocketed when they announced a date for
TV switch off, yet they do the same for radio and digital radio
listening falls quarter-on-quarter!!
Poor DAB Industry Liars, they must be wondering what they have to do
to make people buy this crap technology.
It's a shame you know, because the DAB Industry Liars are such a
lovely bunch of people: seani likes them, and he's a wonderful judge
of character; and they're all, as seani puts it, "class acts", because
they're all very honest, they're very, very technically competent
(some would say they're gifted in this respect), and they're highly
impartial with respect to which digital radio platform they want to
inflict upon people.
As I say, a great shame. I'm sure they'll still be able to switch off
FM stations in 6 years and 2 months, though.
--
Steve - www.savefm.org - stop the BBC bullies switching off FM
www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info
"It is the sheer volume of online audio content available via
internet-connected devices which terrifies the UK radio industry. I
believe that broadband-delivered radio will explode in the years to
come, offering very local, unregulated content, as well as opening a
window to the radio stations of the world." - from the Myers Report
seani
> http://radiotoday.co.uk/news.php?extend.5318
>
> Digital TV take-up apparently rocketed when they announced a date for TV
> switch off, yet they do the same for radio and digital radio listening
> falls quarter-on-quarter!!
>
> Poor DAB Industry Liars, they must be wondering what they have to do to
> make people buy this crap technology.
>
> It's a shame you know, because the DAB Industry Liars are such a lovely
> bunch of people: seani likes them, and he's a wonderful judge of
> character; and they're all, as seani puts it, "class acts", because
> they're all very honest, they're very, very technically competent (some
> would say they're gifted in this respect), and they're highly impartial
> with respect to which digital radio platform they want to inflict upon
> people.
>
> As I say, a great shame. I'm sure they'll still be able to switch off FM
> stations in 6 years and 2 months, though.
You've got a question pending on that blog that you still won't answer.
We know why, don't we?
seani
> On 29 Ott, 21:17, "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@fooked.com> wrote:
>
>> Poor DAB Industry Liars, they must be wondering what they have to do to
>> make people buy this crap technology.
>>
>> It's a shame you know, because the DAB Industry Liars are such a lovely
>> bunch of people: seani likes them, and he's a wonderful judge of
>> character; and they're all, as seani puts it, "class acts"
>
> I certainly noticed James Cridland's classy behaviour on his blog
> recently. Apparently, his way to win an argument is to defame his
> opponent by falsely accusing him of being racist and homophobic. Having
> read some of his contributions here and elsewhere, I can't say I thought
> very highly of him, nor of most of the radio industry bloggers for that
> matter, but I didn't think he could stoop so low. Even if one agrees
> with his point of view, what he did is still no better than what he's
> accused his "industry harasser" opponent of doing.
Steve refuses to give permission for his own posts to be published. This
is because he suspects the contents will confirm JC's points. I'd suspect
he can't actually remember the content of the "smoking gun" posts, he's
just shitting himself on general principles.
If he was confident in his position, he'd agree for *his* posts to be
shown and *then* argue for tampering / whatever. But he won't because he
knows full well what will happen. Just as he refuses to give a yes or no
answer to his other outstanding question. "No" will make him a liar.
"Yes" confirms how low he will - and has - stooped to score a point.
DAB sounds worse than FM
news:da35e372-c635-446c...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>> do
>> to make people buy this crap technology.
>>
>> It's a shame you know, because the DAB Industry Liars are such a
>> lovely bunch of people: seani likes them, and he's a wonderful
>> judge
>> of character; and they're all, as seani puts it, "class acts"
>
> recently. Apparently, his way to win an argument is to defame his
> opponent by falsely accusing him of being racist and homophobic.
Absolutely. Mr Cridland is a lovely human being.
> Having read some of his contributions here and elsewhere, I can't
> say
> I thought very highly of him, nor of most of the radio industry
> bloggers for that matter, but I didn't think he could stoop so low.
He's a nasty piece of work when he wants to be - so is Piggott. And
it's not just the accusations of racism and homophobia, because he
also accused me of sending him funeral magazines through the post, and
of publishing Jenny Abramsky's home address on here, and of making
several people cry in his industry. All nonsense.
Also, his accusation of harrassment is nonsense, because I only
criticise the DAB industry on here, on my website or in magazine
articles, so I fail to see how that can be described as "harrassment".
I very, very rarely ring anybody in the DAB industry up - the last
time I did that was after Tony Moretta appeared on You & Yours on
Radio 4 because I wanted to ask him to justify his claim that it's an
"urban myth" that DAB is less advanced than DAB+, and his claim that
DAB+ only delivers "very, very slightly higher quality" than DAB. And
in that phone call I spoke to Mandy Green, who's the PR person for the
DRDB, and she wouldn't let me get a word in edgeways. And the last
time I can recall ringing anybody in the DAB industry up prior to that
was when I rang Cridland last year, which was when he accused me of
sending him funeral magazines through the post, the delusional fool.
No-one is forcing these people to read this NG or my website - they
claim that they don't read them anyway, yet they claim that I harrass
them. It's just more DAB industry lies.
> Even if one agrees with his point of view, what he did is still no
> better than what he's accused his "industry harasser" opponent of
> doing.
What he did was far worse than anything I've EVER done to them. And I
am very honest, so anything I say is the truth, or at least my honest
opinion of the truth, whereas he simply made up everything he said
about me.
DAB sounds worse than FM
news:7kukqtF...@mid.individual.net...
Which bit of "everything Cridland had said about me up to that point
had been a lie", Sean? Guiseppe has said that he considers Cridland's
accusations to be false, so why can't you get it into your tiny mind
that he was lying from start to finish? It wouldn't be because you
have an obsessional hatred of me, would it?
As he had lied from start to finish, there's no way I would have
trusted him not to have simply added racist and/or homophobic comments
that I had never said to posts that appear to be from me. I'm not born
yesterday, but clearly you were.
> I'd suspect
> he can't actually remember the content of the "smoking gun" posts,
> he's
> just shitting himself on general principles.
See above. And as I said on the thread, why didn't he ban me from his
forums at the time that I made those comments? I didn't get on with
anyone on those forums, because I was basically going "into the lion's
den", so to speak, so Cridland wouldn't have needed much of an excuse
to ban me. In the end he banned me because I'd dared to say that I
understood DAB better than he did - clearly an outrageous remark to
make, and clearly worse than using racist or homophobic remarks!
> If he was confident in his position, he'd agree for *his* posts to
> be
> shown and *then* argue for tampering / whatever.
From the word go, Cridland chose to simply throw accusations just to
get them out there, in full knowledge that mud sticks - he didn't
attempt to back up any of the accusations he threw at me. So him
adding racist and/or homophobic comments and then pass them off as
being by me would simply be another example of that.
It doesn't surprise me that you can't see this as being obviously the
case, because you have such a warped view of me it's unbelievable.
> But he won't because he
> knows full well what will happen. Just as he refuses to give a yes
> or no
> answer to his other outstanding question. "No" will make him a liar.
> "Yes" confirms how low he will - and has - stooped to score a point.
Your other post makes this point, so I'll give my response in that
post.
DAB sounds worse than FM
The reason I refused to answer your question on that blog thread was
because I refused to be spoken to like some naughty little child.
I'd already given my answer, which was that I didn't have a clue what
you were going on about. And I was not prepared to be spoken to in the
way you did, and I wasn't prepared to be subject to a Seani Kangaroo
Court that you like to hold whenever your obsession gets teh better of
you.
I NEVER agree with your conclusions about me anyway, because your
obsessional hatred of me gives you such an incredibly warped view of
me it's untrue, and when you accuse me of anything it's literally
impossible to convince you that you're wrong. So God knows what it is
you reckon I've done this time, but I would expect whatever it is to
be more of your nonsensical claims about me.
Also, I'd just been abused non-stop on that thread from numerous
individuals for the best part of 2 1/2 days, and just as it seemed to
have died down completely, you turned up just to stick the boot in
further and just to keep the thing going when I was thoroughly sick to
death of the whole thing by then. So the thought of you and your
obsession with me keeping that thread going for possibly weeks more
was not something that I wanted to happen at all.
Also, you accused me in one of your posts of being a racist and a
homophobe, even though the comments I'd made were not racist nor
homophobic. Furthermore, if you were claiming that I'm a homophobe
given the remark I made, why did you say the following a few weeks ago
in response to me:
"If you're considering your own sexuality, Jamie seems very
comfortable
with what have obviously been difficult decisions for him and I'd be
surprised if he didn't try to give you genuinely good advice despite
your boorish behaviour. There is little of the social stigma you seem
to believe still exists as evidenced by your implicit insults. You may
be pleasantly surprised."
and
"That's unkind Jamie. Can't you see oulet that your answers give him?
All that repression simmering away under the surface - it has to go
somewhere. Have a heart."
Explain to me what the difference is between me saying to someone that
"I'm not that way inclined", and you claiming that I'm a repressed
homosexual???
You can't have it both ways, Sean.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> On 29 Ott, 23:55, seani <ingliss+s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Steve refuses to give permission for his own posts to be published.
>> This
>> is because he suspects the contents will confirm JC's points. I'd
>> suspect
>> he can't actually remember the content of the "smoking gun" posts,
>> he's
>> just shitting himself on general principles.
>
> evidence of homophobia or racism. And here there's no moderator, so
> one assumes that he would be even more free to speak his mind.
Absolutely right. And thank you.
>> If he was confident in his position, he'd agree for *his* posts to
>> be
>> shown and *then* argue for tampering / whatever.
>
> Considering that Cridland just accused him of all of those things
> without any proof to back them up, why should someone trust him to
> tell the truth?
Absolutely.
> And why has he started calling him a racist and
> homophobe only now, apparently on the basis of posts from at least 5
> years ago, and only those he posted on his message board, which
> hasn't
> been open to the general public for years?
I posted on Cridland's Media UK forum in 2002, so it was 7 years ago
now(!), and I only posted on there for about a month or two (if I
remember correctly anyway) before Cridland unceremoniously banned me
for having the audacity to say that I understood DAB better than he
did (I was referring to the technical side of DAB, and I did
understand it far better than him he did).
>> Just as he refuses to give a yes or no
>> answer to his other outstanding question. "No" will make him a
>> liar.
>> "Yes" confirms how low he will - and has - stooped to score a
>> point.
>
> What episode are you referring to, exactly? A recent one between him
> and Jamie, by any chance?
Who knows what lurks in seani's mind?
DAB sounds worse than FM
news:7kubhsF...@mid.individual.net...
> http://radiotoday.co.uk/news.php?extend.5318
>
> Digital TV take-up apparently rocketed when they announced a date
> for TV switch off, yet they do the same for radio and digital radio
> listening falls quarter-on-quarter!!
>
> Poor DAB Industry Liars, they must be wondering what they have to do
> to make people buy this crap technology.
>
> It's a shame you know, because the DAB Industry Liars are such a
> lovely bunch of people: seani likes them, and he's a wonderful judge
> of character; and they're all, as seani puts it, "class acts",
> because they're all very honest, they're very, very technically
> competent (some would say they're gifted in this respect), and
> they're highly impartial with respect to which digital radio
> platform they want to inflict upon people.
>
> As I say, a great shame. I'm sure they'll still be able to switch
> off FM stations in 6 years and 2 months, though.
"They talk of a digital switchover but instead it's a digital switch
off":
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article6896093.ece
Note the Government Liars referring to switchover as "digital radio
upgrade".
Liars.
seani
> On 29 Ott, 23:55, seani <ingliss+s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Steve refuses to give permission for his own posts to be published.
>> This is because he suspects the contents will confirm JC's points. I'd
>> suspect he can't actually remember the content of the "smoking gun"
>> posts, he's just shitting himself on general principles.
>
> He's posted here for most of this decade, and I haven't seen any
> evidence of homophobia or racism. And here there's no moderator, so one
> assumes that he would be even more free to speak his mind.
>
One might assume that. He's certainly made what I'd class as homophobic
and racist remarks. Whether this makes him a homophobe or a racist is a
more complex question. He's certainly a child in his view of the world,
particularly the business world in which he's never engaged in any
meaningful way.
>> If he was confident in his position, he'd agree for *his* posts to be
>> shown and *then* argue for tampering / whatever.
>
> Considering that Cridland just accused him of all of those things
> without any proof to back them up, why should someone trust him to tell
> the truth? And why has he started calling him a racist and homophobe
> only now, apparently on the basis of posts from at least 5 years ago,
> and only those he posted on his message board, which hasn't been open to
> the general public for years?
JC says he has the evidence. Steve Green says he refuses to "let" him
post it on the grounds that it will be tampered with. Steve's real fear
is not that it's been tampered with, but that it doesn't need to be
tampered with.
Not surprising that he can scarcely keep track of his insults and
slanderous remarks, given his prodigous output.
>
>> Just as he refuses to give a yes or no answer to his other outstanding
>> question. "No" will make him a liar. "Yes" confirms how low he will -
>> and has - stooped to score a point.
>
> What episode are you referring to, exactly? A recent one between him and
> Jamie, by any chance?
No, although that in itself with it's accusations of grooming is
distasteful enough.
Steve muckraked the posts of another poster on an entirely different
matter and used them to silence his dissent - he thinks nothing of that
tactic.
He won't deny he did this, he wants the proof he did before he'll deny it
claiming he "doesn't know what I'm on about". As I keep saying, most of
us would be certain whether we'd employed this odious tactic or not. He
either can't remember, or just hopes it'll go away. Good luck with that.
seani
> "seani" <inglis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7kukc0F...@mid.individual.net...
>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:17:38 +0000, DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>>
>>> http://radiotoday.co.uk/news.php?extend.5318
>>>
>>> Digital TV take-up apparently rocketed when they announced a date for
>>> TV
>>> switch off, yet they do the same for radio and digital radio listening
>>> falls quarter-on-quarter!!
>>>
>>> Poor DAB Industry Liars, they must be wondering what they have to do
>>> to
>>> make people buy this crap technology.
>>>
>>> It's a shame you know, because the DAB Industry Liars are such a
>>> lovely
>>> bunch of people: seani likes them, and he's a wonderful judge of
>>> character; and they're all, as seani puts it, "class acts", because
>>> they're all very honest, they're very, very technically competent
>>> (some
>>> would say they're gifted in this respect), and they're highly
>>> impartial
>>> with respect to which digital radio platform they want to inflict upon
>>> people.
Let's just pause to take note that you phrase this as if I've made these
claims directly. With the exception of "class act" as descriptive of JC,
I haven't. I do believe a lot of them, although not in the typically
clumsy way you express it here.
Secondly, this post didn't need to refer to JC, or me. Steve is begging
for a response, but will now shout "hatred" and "obsession" and cry his
eyes out that the world's against him.
>>>
>>> As I say, a great shame. I'm sure they'll still be able to switch off
>>> FM
>>> stations in 6 years and 2 months, though.
>>
>> You've got a question pending on that blog that you still won't answer.
>> We know why, don't we?
>
>
> The reason I refused to answer your question on that blog thread was
> because I refused to be spoken to like some naughty little child.
>
> I'd already given my answer, which was that I didn't have a clue what
> you were going on about. And I was not prepared to be spoken to in the
> way you did, and I wasn't prepared to be subject to a Seani Kangaroo
> Court that you like to hold whenever your obsession gets teh better of
> you.
Poor love.
You won't answer because either you'll reveal what you did, or be caught
in a lie.
It's a simple question and one you can answer here without fear of
moderation.
Did you muckrake someone's sexual preferences and then use that
information to shut them up on this group? A yes or no is all that's
required.
If the answers an unequivocal "no", I'll post the evidence you did.
If the answers "yes", we can leave it
If the answers "don't know" that tells us a lot about what you'll stoop
to and what you consider forgettable.
And it's a lie to say you didn't answer - you did answer in the blog. The
answer was "don't know"
If you want to clarify your position and answer "no", now's your chance,
isn't it?
>
> I NEVER agree with your conclusions about me anyway, because your
> obsessional hatred of me gives you such an incredibly warped view of me
> it's untrue, and when you accuse me of anything it's literally
> impossible to convince you that you're wrong. So God knows what it is
> you reckon I've done this time, but I would expect whatever it is to be
> more of your nonsensical claims about me.
>
> Also, I'd just been abused non-stop on that thread from numerous
> individuals for the best part of 2 1/2 days, and just as it seemed to
> have died down completely, you turned up just to stick the boot in
> further and just to keep the thing going when I was thoroughly sick to
> death of the whole thing by then. So the thought of you and your
> obsession with me keeping that thread going for possibly weeks more was
> not something that I wanted to happen at all.
>
You've acted like a total arsehole for years, with your constant insults
and cries of "liar!"
You had a taste of your own medicine - at least as far as presentation is
concerned - and you're stung by it. Poor baby.
> Also, you accused me in one of your posts of being a racist and a
> homophobe, even though the comments I'd made were not racist nor
> homophobic. Furthermore, if you were claiming that I'm a homophobe given
> the remark I made, why did you say the following a few weeks ago in
> response to me:
>
> "If you're considering your own sexuality, Jamie seems very comfortable
> with what have obviously been difficult decisions for him and I'd be
> surprised if he didn't try to give you genuinely good advice despite
> your boorish behaviour. There is little of the social stigma you seem to
> believe still exists as evidenced by your implicit insults. You may be
> pleasantly surprised."
>
> and
>
> "That's unkind Jamie. Can't you see oulet that your answers give him?
> All that repression simmering away under the surface - it has to go
> somewhere. Have a heart."
>
> Explain to me what the difference is between me saying to someone that
> "I'm not that way inclined", and you claiming that I'm a repressed
> homosexual???
>
> You can't have it both ways, Sean.
Non-sequitur.
And I'll repeat:
You keep bleating that you're being picked on. I've told you on more than
one occasion that if you want to reduce the number of times I feel like
responding to your rants, keep my name and handle out of your posts.
The start post in this thread didn't require you to refer to me at all.
You did because you wanted a reaction, and you'll bleat now you're
getting one.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:31:28 -0700, Giuseppe wrote:
>
>> On 29 Ott, 23:55, seani <ingliss+s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Steve refuses to give permission for his own posts to be
>>> published.
>>> This is because he suspects the contents will confirm JC's points.
>>> I'd
>>> suspect he can't actually remember the content of the "smoking
>>> gun"
>>> posts, he's just shitting himself on general principles.
>>
>> He's posted here for most of this decade, and I haven't seen any
>> evidence of homophobia or racism. And here there's no moderator, so
>> one
>> assumes that he would be even more free to speak his mind.
>>
>
>
> One might assume that. He's certainly made what I'd class as
> homophobic
> and racist remarks.
My use of a Jewish stereotype was a politically incorrect *joke*, it
was nowhere near being "racist". As for me stating that Jenny Abramsky
is Jewish, could you explain to me what's remotely racist about that,
please, because I'm at a loss.
Re my supposedly homophobic comment, I said (IIRC) "Are you
propositioning me? Sorry, I'm not that way inclined."
But you said the following just a few weeks ago:
"If you're considering your own sexuality, Jamie seems very
comfortable
with what have obviously been difficult decisions for him and I'd be
surprised if he didn't try to give you genuinely good advice despite
your boorish behaviour. There is little of the social stigma you seem
to believe still exists as evidenced by your implicit insults. You may
be pleasantly surprised."
and
"That's unkind Jamie. Can't you see oulet that your answers give him?
All that repression simmering away under the surface - it has to go
somewhere. Have a heart."
BOTH what I said and what you said were making the suggestion that the
other person might be gay. So explain to me what the difference is
between what you said and what I said.
You cannot have it both ways. End of story.
> Whether this makes him a homophobe or a racist is a
> more complex question.
I'll ask one of my best mates whether he thinks I'm racist - he's
Indian, BTW. I don't have any gay friends to call on, so you'll just
have to take my word on it that I'm not homophobic (seani taking my
word on anything would be a first, so I don't hold out great hope in
that happening here!).
> He's certainly a child in his view of the world,
> particularly the business world in which he's never engaged in any
> meaningful way.
"he's certainly a child in his view of the world"
<shakes head in disbelief>
>>> If he was confident in his position, he'd agree for *his* posts to
>>> be
>>> shown and *then* argue for tampering / whatever.
>>
>> Considering that Cridland just accused him of all of those things
>> without any proof to back them up, why should someone trust him to
>> tell
>> the truth? And why has he started calling him a racist and
>> homophobe
>> only now, apparently on the basis of posts from at least 5 years
>> ago,
>> and only those he posted on his message board, which hasn't been
>> open to
>> the general public for years?
>
>
> JC says he has the evidence.
Cridland is a proven liar, Sean. For example, where was his evidence
that I sent him funeral magazines through the post, and where was his
evidence that I published Jenny Abramsky's home address on this NG? He
doesn't have that evidence, because I didn't do those things.
You laughably accuse me above of being "a child in his view of the
world" - it is YOU that's incredibly naive if you think Cridland
wouldn't have simply added racist and homophobic comments to EDITABLE
files on his hard drive and then claim that I'd said them. He'd lied
about me from start to finish, and hadn't provided a shred of evidence
to back up any of the claims he'd made. Oh, but all of a suddent
Cridland was going to start acting honestly? You naive fool.
> Steve Green says he refuses to "let" him
> post it on the grounds that it will be tampered with. Steve's real
> fear
> is not that it's been tampered with, but that it doesn't need to be
> tampered with.
Sean, you will believe whatever you want to believe. And I'm getting
sick and tired of your delusional fantasies about me, frankly.
> Not surprising that he can scarcely keep track of his insults and
> slanderous remarks, given his prodigous output.
I DO NOT think I said anything racist or homophobic on Cridland's
Media UK forum - so don't try to suggest that I do think that.
>>> Just as he refuses to give a yes or no answer to his other
>>> outstanding
>>> question. "No" will make him a liar. "Yes" confirms how low he
>>> will -
>>> and has - stooped to score a point.
>>
>> What episode are you referring to, exactly? A recent one between
>> him and
>> Jamie, by any chance?
>
>
> No, although that in itself with it's accusations of grooming is
> distasteful enough.
I honestly think that when Jamie met Scott on the Internet there was
something seriously wrong about that because of Jamie's age at the
time and the age-difference between them - whereas you continually
criticised me for saying what I did, so you were therefore apologising
for people who groom underage children. Well done on that.
> Steve muckraked the posts of another poster on an entirely different
> matter and used them to silence his dissent - he thinks nothing of
> that
> tactic.
>
> He won't deny he did this, he wants the proof he did before he'll
> deny it
> claiming he "doesn't know what I'm on about". As I keep saying, most
> of
> us would be certain whether we'd employed this odious tactic or not.
> He
> either can't remember, or just hopes it'll go away. Good luck with
> that.
See my last post on this - I answered your question at the time, and I
don't intend to start attending your Seani Kangaroo Courts whenever
you decide to hold them.
Sean, it was a MASSIVE MISTAKE to remove you from my killfile. The
frequency of your posts will undoubtedly have gone up a lot, and in
the 51 posts you've sent since I removed you from my killfile 44 (86%)
have been replying to me or about me, and only 7 have been
non-Steve-related, thus proving beyond any doubt that you are
incredibly obsessed by me.
SO, BACK TO THE KILLFILE YOU GO.
I will no doubt read some of your posts when people quote whatever
nonsense is spewing from your mouth at the time when they reply to
your posts (although the stats show you don't have a great deal to say
to anybody other than me anyway). But I won't read all the posts you
write. And putting you in my killfile will make it more difficult for
me to reply to your posts, so it does deter me from communicating with
you, which is what I want to happen.
If you still can't restrain your delusionally warped views of me, I'm
seriously considering just stopping posting on here altogether for a
while and to concentrate on my website instead (my website has been
neglected this year, and I've got a lot I want to say, so I must just
do that anyway).
Feel free to post references to this misdemeanour I'm supposed to have
done regarding "sexual preferences" - I'll look out for it via Google
Groups for the next few days. Then, hopefully, I'll find the
will-power to ignore the pathetic, warped, delusional and obsessive
drivel you spew about me.
ingliss - Gmail
ingliss+spam - Gmail
*PLONK*
Bye then, Sean. I wish I could say it's been nice knowing you, but
that would be a lie of Cridland proportions.
I wish you luck with improving the satisfaction you have with your
life, though, so that you no longer feel the need to have such
obsessional delusions about me. If you don't have any luck with that
on your own, I would strongly suggest that you book yourself in to see
a shrink, because you ARE ill, and it would help to get a
professional's perspective on your delusional obsession with me.
If you want to do the decent thing, you could just leave this NG
altogether, because you *never* have anything of interest to say about
digital radio, and even amongst the other people who dislike me, such
as Silk and Jamie, I doubt even they would care if you stopped posting
here (people aren't exaggerating when they say those tiresome threads
where you're taking me to task about whatever it is you've got an
issue with will have an audience of one - they don't give a shit about
your gripes with me), and I'm 100% certain that the people with a
genuine interest in digital radio would prefer to see the back of you.
I'll leave that decision with you, although I would expect that you'll
continue to selfishly post on here anyway despite the fact that no-one
is interested in what you have to say.
DAB sounds worse than FM
I'm afraid that you wasted your time writing that, because I've just
been writing a post telling you that I've put you back in my killfile,
so that'll be the last post by you to be displayed in OE.
I'm sick to death of your Seani Kangaroo Courts. I'm sick to death of
having to answer to some delusional obsessive who hates me and his
view of me is so warped it's litereally ridiculous.
I glanced at what you wrote in the post I'm replying to, and it looks
to be stuff that I've already answered - e.g. I've already told you
that I'd given you an answer to your question about this supposed
muckraking, and I'm not being subjected to a Seani Kangaroo Court
style Q&A on this subject - provide references and I'll discuss it, or
STFU you boring twat.
Now, if you don't mind, I've wasted far, far, far too much time this
week having to stick up for myself after incorrect accusations have
been made about me, so I want to get on with work that I could've done
in all that wasted time.
I really do wish you'd consider stopping posting here. I know anybody
is free to post on Usenet, but no-one likes you here, and you never
have ANYTHING to say that's of interest to ANYBODY else - so you would
be doing the group a favour if you quietly just fucked off.
seani
You can't answer "no" to the question. Again.
Noted.
> Now, if you don't mind, I've wasted far, far, far too much time this
> week having to stick up for myself after incorrect accusations have been
> made about me, so I want to get on with work that I could've done in all
> that wasted time.
>
> I really do wish you'd consider stopping posting here. I know anybody is
> free to post on Usenet, but no-one likes you here, and you never have
> ANYTHING to say that's of interest to ANYBODY else - so you would be
> doing the group a favour if you quietly just fucked off.
I don't consider it time wasted - and it's a vanishingly small proportion
of my online and "real" life.
*This* isn't your newsgroup. *You* don't speak for everyone. You'd like
to think that's the case. It isn't
Your answer to:
"Did you muckrake someone's sexual preferences and then use that
information to shut them up on this group? A yes or no is all that's
required."
Remains either "I can't remember" or "I don't believe you can prove it".
Your killfile is an irrelevance. See posts passim.
seani
A reference for any job where you've held any position of responsibility
dealing with other people.
Should be simple enough. I realise you've already answered that you never
have and consider his irrelevant to your baroque fantasies posted here on
the subject of peoples actions and motivation in a large complex
organisation.
As for the non-business world, your sixth form opining on bullying, your
humour, your lack of discipline in debate, your harking back to school
salad days, references to your sexual conquests - all the marks of any
mature male in his 40s I'm sire/
>
>>>> If he was confident in his position, he'd agree for *his* posts to be
>>>> shown and *then* argue for tampering / whatever.
>>>
>>> Considering that Cridland just accused him of all of those things
>>> without any proof to back them up, why should someone trust him to
>>> tell
>>> the truth? And why has he started calling him a racist and homophobe
>>> only now, apparently on the basis of posts from at least 5 years ago,
>>> and only those he posted on his message board, which hasn't been open
>>> to
>>> the general public for years?
>>
>>
>> JC says he has the evidence.
>
>
> Cridland is a proven liar, Sean. For example, where was his evidence
> that I sent him funeral magazines through the post, and where was his
> evidence that I published Jenny Abramsky's home address on this NG? He
> doesn't have that evidence, because I didn't do those things.
>
> You laughably accuse me above of being "a child in his view of the
> world" - it is YOU that's incredibly naive if you think Cridland
> wouldn't have simply added racist and homophobic comments to EDITABLE
> files on his hard drive and then claim that I'd said them. He'd lied
> about me from start to finish, and hadn't provided a shred of evidence
> to back up any of the claims he'd made. Oh, but all of a suddent
> Cridland was going to start acting honestly? You naive fool.
>
If that's the case, allow him to post and you can make the same
substantive claim. You're shitting yourself because it'll have your
imprimature.
>
>> Steve Green says he refuses to "let" him post it on the grounds that it
>> will be tampered with. Steve's real fear
>> is not that it's been tampered with, but that it doesn't need to be
>> tampered with.
>
>
> Sean, you will believe whatever you want to believe. And I'm getting
> sick and tired of your delusional fantasies about me, frankly.
>
>
>> Not surprising that he can scarcely keep track of his insults and
>> slanderous remarks, given his prodigous output.
>
>
> I DO NOT think I said anything racist or homophobic on Cridland's Media
> UK forum - so don't try to suggest that I do think that.
I think you can't remember which is just as damning.
>
>
>>>> Just as he refuses to give a yes or no answer to his other
>>>> outstanding
>>>> question. "No" will make him a liar. "Yes" confirms how low he will -
>>>> and has - stooped to score a point.
>>>
>>> What episode are you referring to, exactly? A recent one between him
>>> and
>>> Jamie, by any chance?
>>
>>
>> No, although that in itself with it's accusations of grooming is
>> distasteful enough.
>
>
> I honestly think that when Jamie met Scott on the Internet there was
> something seriously wrong about that because of Jamie's age at the time
> and the age-difference between them - whereas you continually criticised
> me for saying what I did, so you were therefore apologising for people
> who groom underage children. Well done on that.
>
Facile obvious strawman. I said nothing of the sort. This is your little
fantasy and no reflection of what I've posted or any views I hold.
Anyone wondering about the truthfulness of your approach or position
would do well to read and digest the paragraph you've written here. It's
a perfect exemplar of your tactics.
>
>> Steve muckraked the posts of another poster on an entirely different
>> matter and used them to silence his dissent - he thinks nothing of that
>> tactic.
>>
>> He won't deny he did this, he wants the proof he did before he'll deny
>> it
>> claiming he "doesn't know what I'm on about". As I keep saying, most of
>> us would be certain whether we'd employed this odious tactic or not. He
>> either can't remember, or just hopes it'll go away. Good luck with
>> that.
>
>
> See my last post on this - I answered your question at the time, and I
> don't intend to start attending your Seani Kangaroo Courts whenever you
> decide to hold them.
>
You didn't answer it then, and you haven't answered it now. You can
answer it in a sentence. You won't because, much like your other posts,
you're shitting yourself over what you *did* do.
> Sean, it was a MASSIVE MISTAKE to remove you from my killfile. The
> frequency of your posts will undoubtedly have gone up a lot, and in the
> 51 posts you've sent since I removed you from my killfile 44 (86%) have
> been replying to me or about me, and only 7 have been non-Steve-related,
> thus proving beyond any doubt that you are incredibly obsessed by me.
It's flattering that you have the statistics to hand.
The *surest* way to affect these is either:
1) Don't mention me apropos of nothing in your posts
2) Don't engage in a dialogue. You know, making multiple responses to a
single post of mine, that sort of thing.
As to the percentages, one or two threads can account for it, it's
meaningless.
As is your cherrypicking of measuring since removing me from your
imaginary killfile. Totally meaningless.
>
> SO, BACK TO THE KILLFILE YOU GO.
Ah, the killfile, the killfile. Where would you be without it. Or more
importantly *with* it. Google groups, that's where, isn't it?
>
> I will no doubt read some of your posts when people quote whatever
> nonsense is spewing from your mouth at the time when they reply to your
> posts (although the stats show you don't have a great deal to say to
> anybody other than me anyway). But I won't read all the posts you write.
> And putting you in my killfile will make it more difficult for me to
> reply to your posts, so it does deter me from communicating with you,
> which is what I want to happen.
If you garner what you consider to be a disproportionate number of
responses, it's because you're matchless in spewing warped and offensive
shit, and unique in believing it should elicit no reponse.
>
> If you still can't restrain your delusionally warped views of me, I'm
> seriously considering just stopping posting on here altogether for a
> while and to concentrate on my website instead (my website has been
> neglected this year, and I've got a lot I want to say, so I must just do
> that anyway).
Is that supposed to sound like a threat? Sounds more like a reward to me.
>
> Feel free to post references to this misdemeanour I'm supposed to have
> done regarding "sexual preferences" - I'll look out for it via Google
> Groups for the next few days. Then, hopefully, I'll find the will-power
> to ignore the pathetic, warped, delusional and obsessive drivel you spew
> about me.
It's posted when you answer "no" to the question, Steve. Something you
are oddly incapable or unwilling to do.
>
> ingliss - Gmail
> ingliss+spam - Gmail
>
> *PLONK*
>
Ow.
> Bye then, Sean. I wish I could say it's been nice knowing you, but that
> would be a lie of Cridland proportions.
>
> I wish you luck with improving the satisfaction you have with your life,
> though, so that you no longer feel the need to have such obsessional
> delusions about me. If you don't have any luck with that on your own, I
> would strongly suggest that you book yourself in to see a shrink,
> because you ARE ill, and it would help to get a professional's
> perspective on your delusional obsession with me.
>
> If you want to do the decent thing, you could just leave this NG
> altogether, because you *never* have anything of interest to say about
> digital radio, and even amongst the other people who dislike me, such as
> Silk and Jamie, I doubt even they would care if you stopped posting here
> (people aren't exaggerating when they say those tiresome threads where
> you're taking me to task about whatever it is you've got an issue with
> will have an audience of one - they don't give a shit about your gripes
> with me), and I'm 100% certain that the people with a genuine interest
> in digital radio would prefer to see the back of you.
>
> I'll leave that decision with you, although I would expect that you'll
> continue to selfishly post on here anyway despite the fact that no-one
> is interested in what you have to say.
"Selfishly"?
With your track record of posting?
You just couldn't make it up.
seani
> On 30 Ott, 10:10, seani <ingliss+s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > He's posted here for most of this decade, and I haven't seen any
>> > evidence of homophobia or racism. And here there's no moderator, so
>> > one assumes that he would be even more free to speak his mind.
>>
>> One might assume that. He's certainly made what I'd class as homophobic
>> and racist remarks.
>
> Any examples, apart from a couple of non-PC jokes?
>
Ah, they're *jokes* you think? These sort of jokes are at best made with
a twinkle and in a sort of friendly social complicity with the person
who's on the receiving end.
Even if this is regarded as a defence, that simply isn't the case here.
>> JC says he has the evidence. Steve Green says he refuses to "let" him
>> post it on the grounds that it will be tampered with. Steve's real fear
>> is not that it's been tampered with, but that it doesn't need to be
>> tampered with.
>
> Apart from Cridland's manifest untrustworthiness, the point is that
> those posts were made 7 years ago, on a message board operated by
> Cridland himself, a board which has long disappeared from public view.
> Why only start referring to those now to justify his character
> assassination? What he posted there is irrelevant by now. He could have
> referred to posts Steve made here, on a public board, but then he
> doesn't find any to support his accusations, and says that Steve
> cancelled the more offensive ones from the Google archive, of which,
> again, there's no proof. Very convenient, isn't it? He claims to have
> been "harrassed" (sic), but what he did is not any better, if not worse.
>
Steve claims these posts don't exist and will be manufactured. Let JC
publish and Steve can rebut them. Steve won't do this because he fears
people will see his hand in them.
Proof of his "manifest untrustworthiness" other than Steve's insane
ramblings?
JC - and others - have put up with Steve's behaviour for best part of a
decade. He can dish it out but, when someone is free to dish it back, he
can't take it.
>> Steve muckraked the posts of another poster on an entirely different
>> matter and used them to silence his dissent - he thinks nothing of that
>> tactic.
>
> I can only remember this thread here:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.radio.digital/browse_frm/thread/
f55aeea3e9ffd64e/8aba064f698cd818
>
> Similar accusations from your part, and pretty baseless ones at that.
Similar statements of fact. He muckraked the groups for other postings by
the same user, and introduced sly intimations that he'd done so on the
same thread. He didn't say them straight out. He didn't publicly threaten
the poster. He let the poster know with his schoolboy puns that he new.
Odious.
And as it happens he mentioned me - once again apropos of nothing - in
the same process.
Your definition of baseless is faulty.
DAB sounds worse than FM
>> > evidence of homophobia or racism. And here there's no moderator,
>> > so one
>> > assumes that he would be even more free to speak his mind.
>>
>> One might assume that. He's certainly made what I'd class as
>> homophobic
>> and racist remarks.
>
>
>> him
>> post it on the grounds that it will be tampered with. Steve's real
>> fear
>> is not that it's been tampered with, but that it doesn't need to be
>> tampered with.
>
> those posts were made 7 years ago, on a message board operated by
> Cridland himself, a board which has long disappeared from public
> view.
> Why only start referring to those now to justify his character
> assassination? What he posted there is irrelevant by now. He could
> have referred to posts Steve made here, on a public board, but then
> he
> doesn't find any to support his accusations, and says that Steve
> cancelled the more offensive ones from the Google archive, of which,
> again, there's no proof. Very convenient, isn't it?
> He claims to have been "harrassed" (sic), but what he did is not any
> better, if not worse.
Absolutely right.
>> Steve muckraked the posts of another poster on an entirely
>> different
>> matter and used them to silence his dissent - he thinks nothing of
>> that
>> tactic.
>
> I can only remember this thread here:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.radio.digital/browse_frm/thread/f55aeea3e9ffd64e/8aba064f698cd818
>
> Similar accusations from your part, and pretty baseless ones at
> that.
Ahaaaaa! I see what seani's going on about with regards to this
"sexual preferences" stuff - there's a reference to it here:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.radio.digital/msg/a318c44df6bdcab2
"> Attempted blackmail??
Oh yes, end of January this year, absolutely no doubt whatsoever. Want
a *hand* remembering? Have your bi-tten off more than you can chew
with
your a-bi-smal little muckraking exercise? Overestimated your own
a-bi-lity? "
Hillarious!
And I give EXACTLY the same response to that TODAY as I did then:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.radio.digital/msg/aa523bd61096c516
"Yes, you're going to have to help me out with this one, because I can
assure you that I have never and would never blackmail anybody.
If you're referring to that bloke that I referred to the other day who
had posted on here and I looked up his Google Groups posting history
and it showed that he'd been busily posting to groups looking for
someone to take part in some mutual masturbation sessions, all I did
was use some words along the lines of bi-cycle and other words being
prefixed with 'bi' as a bit of fun.
I emailed Bill Wright about it, and oh how we both laughed. Why?
Because it is funny to see a self-confessed married man looking for
some sordid sessions being tossed off by some random stranger in a
layby. If you don't think it is, then you really need to get yourself
a
sense of humour pal.
No harm was done whatsoever, and me and Bill had a bit of a giggle.
The
only person who would give a shit about this is YOU - no surprise
there
then."
And, I would reiterate what I said here as well:
"seani, whatever job it is you do, your talents are being utterly
wasted, and I have the ideal job for you: you should start a new
organisation called Doggers & Swingers Rights to Fumble in Laybys
(DASRTFIL). I believe you'd do a grand job."
That's as true today as it was then as well: DASRTFIL Executive
Chairman IS your ideal job.
And, just for the sake of completeness, here's the links Guiseppe
provided at the time (to save you the trouble, of course, seani):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.personals.gay/msg/3824ca2f7b72463b?hl=it
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.personals.bi/msg/177126157af75053?hl=it
Sorry, but that was funny.
Hold on! Hold on!!!!! It gets better. Or to quote John Motson, "it
just gets better and better and better"! Look at this classic seani
idiocy:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.radio.digital/msg/0877b4468b270cd9
"If the intention was not to pressurise the OP into shutting up, why
*wasn't* the post in question referred to explicitly and instead in
this puerile and oblique manner?
Why was the OPs wife mentioned:
"I mean, what would your wife think?"
What was the purpose of this?
That's the nature of blackmail of course - if you "expose" the person
you're blackmailing, it's game-over. If you don't, but just drop a few
hints, you stand a chance of exercising some control, and this is
precisely the situation here. Only now he's caught out, it's just a
laugh and a joke, right? He's roped in Bill Wright to spread the risk
and try to defuse things a bit, but it's easy to see the intention."
Blackmail - what is this idiot on? His brain is just so warped it's on
a different planet to everyone else's, it really is - possibly in a
different universe altogether. Blackmail - it's as bad as Cridland's
delusion that I sent him funeral magazines through the post. Why on
earth would I want to blackmail some random wanker off Usenet? Ye
Gods.
seani
Funnily Bill Wright didn't express any particular amusement at the time.
To recap you:
"looked up his Google Groups posting history and
it showed that he'd been busily posting to groups looking for someone to
take part in some mutual masturbation sessions, all I did was use some
words along the lines of bi-cycle and other words being prefixed with
'bi' as a bit of fun."
So. Muckraked his private life and used it to attempt to shut him up -
successfully as it happens.
And no denial - just another "joke" along with your other "jokes".
All grist to your mill, eh Steve?
And thanks for quoting the exchanges in full here. Telling that you
believe your action and explanation for it was reasonable.
Nobody can doubt that there's little you'll avoid stooping to.
ste...@totalise.co.uk
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:46:54 +0000, DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>
>
>
It was to have a bit of fun - admittedly at his expense. Clearly
having a joke at someone's expense should be an imprisonable offence
in Seani Land.
> And no denial - just another "joke" along with your other "jokes".
*Absolutely*. It *was* funny. I thought it was funny, Bill Wright
thought it was funny. Guiseppe hasn't expressed an opinion on whether
he thought it was funny, but he didn't have a problem with it.
Only seani has a problem with it. That's a first.
> All grist to your mill, eh Steve?
>
> And thanks for quoting the exchanges in full here. Telling that you
> believe your action and explanation for it was reasonable.
Not. A. Problem.
> Nobody can doubt that there's little you'll avoid stooping to.
Erm, you seem to have forgotten that YOU ACCUSED ME of making RACIST
and HOMOPHOBIC remarks.
Now, please provide some references to these RACIST and HOMOPHOBIC
remarks.
Remember that you made an almost identical remark to the one I made,
yet you claim the one I made was "homophobic". So, unless you are
actually saying that you're a homophobe, you need to take that
accusation back immediatement.
With regards to the racism accusation, I suggest you get trawling
through Google Groups. Chop chop, now, seani, chop chop. Remember that
the law of averages would suggest that as I've sent thousands of
posts, then you should be able to find lots and lots of racist remarks
made by me *if* I am the rabid racist you claim I am. So, let's be
having these references, seani.
BTW, what was YOUR reason for popping up on Cridland's blog to throw
mud at me? In fact, what is your overriding reason for following me
around on this NG? Would it be, by any chance, to "blackmail" me,
using your definition of the word? That is, to exert control over me /
shut me up by pressuring me to conform to the way you think people
ought to behave? That *is* something you've said is your reason for
replying to me - you said it on that thread where you claimed that I
was trying to blackmail that wanker.
Oh. The. Irony.
You're very similar to Cridland, you know, because neither of you can
string an argument together without repeatedly shooting yourself in
the foot.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> On 30 Ott, 16:30, seani <ingliss+s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ah, they're *jokes* you think? These sort of jokes are at best made
>> with
>> a twinkle and in a sort of friendly social complicity with the
>> person
>> who's on the receiving end.
>
> what more should he do?
>
>> Steve claims these posts don't exist and will be manufactured. Let
>> JC
>> publish and Steve can rebut them. Steve won't do this because he
>> fears
>> people will see his hand in them.
>
>
>> Proof of his "manifest untrustworthiness" other than Steve's insane
>> ramblings?
>
> unpleasant
> things, with no proof to back up these serious accusations. That's
> enough for me not to trust him to tell the truth anymore.
Absolutely.
>> JC - and others - have put up with Steve's behaviour for best part
>> of a
>> decade. He can dish it out but, when someone is free to dish it
>> back, he
>> can't take it.
>
> I don't remember Steve ever doing anything as unpleasant as what
> Cridland has done. To me it seems that a lot of those radio industry
> people (many of which posted on that blog) can't argue on the merits
> of what he says, and thus decide to attack on a personal level.
Absolutely right - they know they can't touch me on technical
arguments, so they choose to resort to assassinating my character. It
shows the kind of people they are superbly well.
> Notice
> how they also tried to do that on Grant Goddard's blog, where
> however
> this kind of behaviour is not tolerated.
>
>> Similar statements of fact. He muckraked the groups for other
>> postings by
>> the same user, and introduced sly intimations that he'd done so on
>> the
>> same thread.
>
> So now looking at someone's recent posting history is "muckracking"?
> Not to mention that he was replying to this example of fine prose:
> "I think you should remove whatever it is up your arse that is
> causing
> you so
> many problems, namely your head!!
>
> BOLLOCKS!! "
>
> Basically, you've been blowing it out of all proportion, to say the
> least.
Absolutely. And he's been blowing everything I do out of all
proportion for several years now, and I'm seriously getting fucked off
with it.
jamie powell
"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@fooked.com> wrote in message
news:7l045aF...@mid.individual.net...
>
>>>
>>> What episode are you referring to, exactly? A recent one between him and
>>> Jamie, by any chance?
>>
>>
>> No, although that in itself with it's accusations of grooming is
>> distasteful enough.
>
>
>
> I honestly think that when Jamie met Scott on the Internet there was
> something seriously wrong about that because of Jamie's age at the time and
> the age-difference between them - whereas you continually criticised me for
> saying what I did, so you were therefore apologising for people who groom
> underage children. Well done on that.
I hate you, I think you're shit, and I wish you were dead.
Richard Evans
> http://radiotoday.co.uk/news.php?extend.5318
>
> Digital TV take-up apparently rocketed when they announced a date for
> TV switch off, yet they do the same for radio and digital radio
> listening falls quarter-on-quarter!!
>
> Poor DAB Industry Liars, they must be wondering what they have to do
> to make people buy this crap technology.
Oh dear. Perhaps people are beginning to recognise DAB for what it is.
What, DAB isn't CD quality!! Looks like the secret may be out, that must
be a big blow for the DAB industry.
>
> It's a shame you know, because the DAB Industry Liars are such a
> lovely bunch of people: seani likes them, and he's a wonderful judge
> of character; and they're all, as seani puts it, "class acts", because
> they're all very honest, they're very, very technically competent
> (some would say they're gifted in this respect), and they're highly
> impartial with respect to which digital radio platform they want to
> inflict upon people.
>
> As I say, a great shame. I'm sure they'll still be able to switch off
> FM stations in 6 years and 2 months, though.
Perhaps, if you mean leap years. Humm.... Do you think they will do it
in 6 leap years??
Richard Evans
I wonder if the public are being a bit clever, and realising that if
they don't but DAB radios, then FM will not be able to be switched off.
Or then again, it may be a protest. If you are threatening to switch off
my FM then I'm not buying your bl*dy DAB.
Richard E.
DAB sounds worse than FM
news:hcfv4m$ia7$1...@aioe.org...
What I said above is my honest opinion, and it would be no different
if this were someone other than you.
As for you disliking me, do you actually think I like you after the
amount of time I've wasted responding to your incessant trolling of me
over the last few months?
You need to grow the fuck up, Jamie, because you've been an incredibly
annoying little shit on here, and apparently on uk.tech.digital-tv,
for ages now. Bill Wright reckons you're probably an alright person
underneath, and your posting style on Usenet is just an act. If it is
an act then I suggest you drop it, because you don't achieve
*anything* by deliberately pissing people off non-stop. And I've no
idea why you seem to think those very same people would have any
sympathy for you.
DAB sounds worse than FM
news:hcfvmc$itg$1...@aioe.org...
> DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>> http://radiotoday.co.uk/news.php?extend.5318
>>
>> Digital TV take-up apparently rocketed when they announced a date
>> for TV switch off, yet they do the same for radio and digital radio
>> listening falls quarter-on-quarter!!
>>
>> Poor DAB Industry Liars, they must be wondering what they have to
>> do to make people buy this crap technology.
>
> Oh dear. Perhaps people are beginning to recognise DAB for what it
> is. What, DAB isn't CD quality!! Looks like the secret may be out,
> that must be a big blow for the DAB industry.
Either that or people simply couldn't care less about buying DAB.
>> It's a shame you know, because the DAB Industry Liars are such a
>> lovely bunch of people: seani likes them, and he's a wonderful
>> judge of character; and they're all, as seani puts it, "class
>> acts", because they're all very honest, they're very, very
>> technically competent (some would say they're gifted in this
>> respect), and they're highly impartial with respect to which
>> digital radio platform they want to inflict upon people.
>>
>> As I say, a great shame. I'm sure they'll still be able to switch
>> off FM stations in 6 years and 2 months, though.
>
> Perhaps, if you mean leap years. Humm.... Do you think they will do
> it in 6 leap years??
6 months of leap years is more likely at the current rate.
DAB sounds worse than FM
I just don't think they care about it at all - something like 95%+ of
people are already satisfied with what they've got according to
Ofcom's market research survey, so clearly people just don't want DAB.
seani
>>
>> So. Muckraked his private life and used it to attempt to shut him up -
>> successfully as it happens.
>
>
> It was to have a bit of fun - admittedly at his expense. Clearly having
> a joke at someone's expense should be an imprisonable offence in Seani
> Land.
>
>
>> And no denial - just another "joke" along with your other "jokes".
>
>
> *Absolutely*. It *was* funny. I thought it was funny, Bill Wright
> thought it was funny. Guiseppe hasn't expressed an opinion on whether he
> thought it was funny, but he didn't have a problem with it.
>
> Only seani has a problem with it. That's a first.
>
You say Bill Wright thought it was funny. Bill Wright who was "around" in
the forum at the time didn't express that opinion. We have only your
interpretation of events and that's shown to be unreliable.
>
>> All grist to your mill, eh Steve?
>>
>> And thanks for quoting the exchanges in full here. Telling that you
>> believe your action and explanation for it was reasonable.
>
>
> Not. A. Problem.
>
>
>> Nobody can doubt that there's little you'll avoid stooping to.
>
>
> Erm, you seem to have forgotten that YOU ACCUSED ME of making RACIST and
> HOMOPHOBIC remarks.
>
> Now, please provide some references to these RACIST and HOMOPHOBIC
> remarks.
>
> Remember that you made an almost identical remark to the one I made, yet
> you claim the one I made was "homophobic". So, unless you are actually
> saying that you're a homophobe, you need to take that accusation back
> immediatement.
My remarks are nothing like your fantasies, repeating your strawmen ad-
infinitum won't make it so.
>
> With regards to the racism accusation, I suggest you get trawling
> through Google Groups. Chop chop, now, seani, chop chop. Remember that
> the law of averages would suggest that as I've sent thousands of posts,
> then you should be able to find lots and lots of racist remarks made by
> me *if* I am the rabid racist you claim I am. So, let's be having these
> references, seani.
Your remarks on the tight fistedness of Jews are racist. No doubt
whatsoever. Your own mitigation that it was a "joke" make no difference
to the substance of the matter.
However I do withdraw the accusation that you've made homophobic remarks.
Although your attacks on Jamie and the particular line you've taken there
are just as repulsive as your treatment of the other poster you
successfully hustled out of the group, I accept these could be
interpreted as neutral to his sexuality. Jamie might feel otherwise, I
couldn't say.
JC's accusations that you're a homophobe as opposed to someone who makes
homophobic remarks, you'll have to take up with him. Best addressed with
the simple expedient of having your Media UK remarks released into the
open. If nothing else we might learn a few new jokes, eh?
>
> BTW, what was YOUR reason for popping up on Cridland's blog to throw mud
> at me? In fact, what is your overriding reason for following me around
> on this NG? Would it be, by any chance, to "blackmail" me, using your
> definition of the word? That is, to exert control over me / shut me up
> by pressuring me to conform to the way you think people ought to behave?
> That *is* something you've said is your reason for replying to me - you
> said it on that thread where you claimed that I was trying to blackmail
> that wanker.
>
As he's someone who's been instrumental in supporting and improving the
quality of my radio listening and involved in radio in general, I follow
his blog posts. Some of them I even agree with.
I responded to your standard set of rants on there because what I had to
say was directly related to how truthful your statements are and how
selective your memory is.
The fact you couldn't remember your appalling behaviour and still seek to
shrug it off as some sort of irrelevant joke speaks volumes about the
likelihood that his assertions about your posts on MediaUK are accurate
That and your pants-crapping over having them exposed to public scrutiny.
> Oh. The. Irony.
>
> You're very similar to Cridland, you know, because neither of you can
> string an argument together without repeatedly shooting yourself in the
> foot.
Not at all. But it's *is* sometimes difficult to get a shot in amongst
your self-generated friendly fire.
ste...@totalise.co.uk
want to waste more time than I have to on this as I've got work I want
to do, and the points I snipped were things that have already been
discussed and I was happy with the previous answers I gave, so there's
no need to repeat myself. The one issue that remains is your
accusation of racism, which I address below.
On Oct 31, 10:30 am, seani <ingliss+s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:14:07 -0700, steve41 wrote:
> > With regards to the racism accusation, I suggest you get trawling
> > through Google Groups. Chop chop, now, seani, chop chop. Remember that
> > the law of averages would suggest that as I've sent thousands of posts,
> > then you should be able to find lots and lots of racist remarks made by
> > me *if* I am the rabid racist you claim I am. So, let's be having these
> > references, seani.
>
> Your remarks on the tight fistedness of Jews are racist. No doubt
> whatsoever. Your own mitigation that it was a "joke" make no difference
> to the substance of the matter.
Firstly, let's get something clear: the accusation made by Cridland,
and repeated by you on his thread, was that I am a "racist".
You need A HELL OF A LOT MORE EVIDENCE than me referring to a
stereotype that Jewish people are tight-fisted to show that I'm
racist. That stereotype is on a par with black men have big dicks,
Chinese people have slant eyes, and white men can't dance and they're
uptight (as per what black stand-up comedians like Richard Pryor and
Eddie Murphy used to say).
And as I said on Cridland's blog, Stephen Fry made an almost identical
joke to the one I did on QI where he made reference to the stereotype
that Jewish people are tight-fisted. The audience laughed, and it was
forgotten within an instant. Now, **IF** Stephen Fry had said
something that was *actually* "racist" then there would unquestionably
have been a media storm about it, he'd have got sacked and so on.
Nothing at all happened following him making that joke, because people
do not classify it as being "racist".
You see, what you're doing here is mis-using the word "racist" in
order to assassinate my character. The word "racist" in normal
language is used to define people who are racially prejudiced. And I
simply am not racially prejudiced, and nor have you provided any
evidence to show that I am.
The remark I made was politically incorrect. Nothing more than that.
I am not a racist, and that remark was not racist.
End of story.
> However I do withdraw the accusation that you've made homophobic remarks.
I should think so too. But you need to withdraw the accusation that
I'm a racist and that remark was racist, because I'm not and it wasn't.
seani
Your remark was racist. A simple statement of fact.
You can argue it was a "joke" or a "mistake" or a "pisstake" as you've
tried to on previous occasions where you almost apologised for it to the
target of your insult. Couldn't quite bring yourself to that point though.
The closest I've ever come to saying you're a racist is to say that your
racist remarks don't necessarily make you a racist. If you want me to
withdraw that opinion as inaccurate, consider it withdrawn.
The other rampant hypebole is all vocabulary you've brought into the
discussion, not me. You've made a virtual career out of doing this.
It is a little bizarre, although not unprecedented, that the accusations
you object to are mostly inflated in their rancour by your *own*
exaggerations.
No withdrawal necessary.
And if it comes to a choice between believing JC that you made racist and
homophobic remarks that you now refuse to allow to be aired, and
believing your assertion that you didn't make those remarks, I trust him,
no question.
The easiest way to have him withdraw the accusation is to allow your
remarks to be published.
Very simple.
ste...@totalise.co.uk
No, it's your opinion, and that happens to be the opinion of someone
who has an obsessional hatred of me, and someone who finds it
absolutely impossible to view anything that's related to me in a fair
and balanced way - because you're obsessed and your mind warps
everything relating me.
> You can argue it was a "joke" or a "mistake" or a "pisstake" as you've
> tried to on previous occasions where you almost apologised for it to the
> target of your insult. Couldn't quite bring yourself to that point though.
Could you rephrase that in English this time, please?
> The closest I've ever come to saying you're a racist is to say that your
> racist remarks don't necessarily make you a racist. If you want me to
> withdraw that opinion as inaccurate, consider it withdrawn.
What you need to prove is that I'm a racist, or withdraw the
accusation. You have a lot of work to do. Run run, Sean.
> The other rampant hypebole is all vocabulary you've brought into the
> discussion, not me. You've made a virtual career out of doing this.
>
> It is a little bizarre, although not unprecedented, that the accusations
> you object to are mostly inflated in their rancour by your *own*
> exaggerations.
Speaking in riddles this time - can't you just speak in English like
everybody else?
BTW, do you not realise how transparent it is that your use of
language - using big words and legalistic language when we're just
discussing something on Usenet, innit - shows that you're
overcompensating? I'll let you figure out what you're overcompensating
for - I know, but I doubt you'll thank me for saying so.
> No withdrawal necessary.
>
> And if it comes to a choice between believing JC that you made racist and
> homophobic remarks that you now refuse to allow to be aired, and
> believing your assertion that you didn't make those remarks, I trust him,
> no question.
Hahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahaaaa!!!!!!!!
Hillarious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sean, that is THE MOST SUPERFLUOUS thing you have EVER SAID ON HERE
EVER. No-one who has ever read one of your demented and obsessive
posts needs to be told that you would NEVER EVER take my word for
ANYTHING.
Gordon Bennett, man, WTF?
> The easiest way to have him withdraw the accusation is to allow your
> remarks to be published.
>
> Very simple.
See previous posts. The fact that you would trust him shows how
ridiculously obsessed and how warped your mind is.
Right, unless you've got something NEW to say, I suggest we leave it
here - I'm not expecting you to retract your dishonest accusation that
I'm a racist, because you are My Personal Stalker, so there's really
nothing to discuss.
seani
I don't need to prove it; I didn't make the accusation. I referred to the
fact that you made a racist remark. That statement won't be withdrawn.
>
>> The other rampant hypebole is all vocabulary you've brought into the
>> discussion, not me. You've made a virtual career out of doing this.
>>
>> It is a little bizarre, although not unprecedented, that the
>> accusations you object to are mostly inflated in their rancour by your
>> *own* exaggerations.
>
>
> Speaking in riddles this time - can't you just speak in English like
> everybody else?
Get a dictionary.
In simpler terms, the hysterical language that you say people have used
to claim you're a racist isn't generally speaking *theirs*, it's *yours*.
You use your standard tactic of running people's remarks though the Steve
Green languagifier and then try to pass the results off as if someone
else used those words.
>
> BTW, do you not realise how transparent it is that your use of language
> - using big words and legalistic language when we're just discussing
> something on Usenet, innit - shows that you're overcompensating? I'll
> let you figure out what you're overcompensating for - I know, but I
> doubt you'll thank me for saying so.
>
You can carry on. No small man syndrome here.
>
>> No withdrawal necessary.
>>
>> And if it comes to a choice between believing JC that you made racist
>> and homophobic remarks that you now refuse to allow to be aired, and
>> believing your assertion that you didn't make those remarks, I trust
>> him, no question.
>
>
> Hahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahaaaa!!!!!!!!
>
> Hillarious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Sean, that is THE MOST SUPERFLUOUS thing you have EVER SAID ON HERE
> EVER. No-one who has ever read one of your demented and obsessive posts
> needs to be told that you would NEVER EVER take my word for ANYTHING.
>
> Gordon Bennett, man, WTF?
>
That only makes sense in SteveWorld where anyone opposed to your view is
a liar and proof consists of no more than constant reference to your own
demented theories and interpretation.
>
>> The easiest way to have him withdraw the accusation is to allow your
>> remarks to be published.
>>
>> Very simple.
>
>
> See previous posts. The fact that you would trust him shows how
> ridiculously obsessed and how warped your mind is.
>
> Right, unless you've got something NEW to say, I suggest we leave it
> here - I'm not expecting you to retract your dishonest accusation that
> I'm a racist, because you are My Personal Stalker, so there's really
> nothing to discuss.
You can leave the dialog any time you like Steve.
Not checking the thread in Google Groups is one way to help you kick the
habit.
Not referring to me apropos of nothing when you make a post is another
way you can stop exposing your mania.
ste...@totalise.co.uk
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:19:13 -0700, steve41 wrote:
> >> The closest I've ever come to saying you're a racist is to say that
> >> your racist remarks don't necessarily make you a racist. If you want me
> >> to withdraw that opinion as inaccurate, consider it withdrawn.
>
> > What you need to prove is that I'm a racist, or withdraw the accusation.
> > You have a lot of work to do. Run run, Sean.
>
> I don't need to prove it; I didn't make the accusation. I referred to the
> fact that you made a racist remark. That statement won't be withdrawn.
This is what you wrote on Cridland's blog:
"Readers of the 16th October edition of Private Eye – #1247 – may want
to turn to page 19 and look at the responses of “Ben Bradshaw” in the
“Me and My Spoon” column.
Such an astonishingly close match of prose and ideology that you’d
have to suspect it was the work of another noted BBC critic…
It lacks the extra zip afforded by racism and homophobia, but you
can’t have everything.
Note: "racism and homophobia". You've retracted the homophobia
accusation, but you haven't retracted the ****RACISM**** accusation.
Now, ***PROVE*** that I'm a ***RACIST*** or retract that accusation.
End of story.
> >> The other rampant hypebole is all vocabulary you've brought into the
> >> discussion, not me. You've made a virtual career out of doing this.
>
> >> It is a little bizarre, although not unprecedented, that the
> >> accusations you object to are mostly inflated in their rancour by your
> >> *own* exaggerations.
>
> > Speaking in riddles this time - can't you just speak in English like
> > everybody else?
>
> Get a dictionary.
It isn't the words I fail to understand, Sean, it's the fact that you
provide no context, so until I perfect the power of reading your mind
I haven't got the foggiest what you're going on about.
> In simpler terms, the hysterical language that you say people have used
> to claim you're a racist isn't generally speaking *theirs*, it's *yours*.
More seani delusions. In case you really have managed to forget what
was said, here's the *first line* of the *first comment* posted by
Cridland on his blog:
"Ah, Steve Green, the well-known industry troll, homophobe and racist"
I suggest you ponder on your suggestion that I've been "hysterical"
about this, because it's a good example of how your mind warps things.
> You use your standard tactic of running people's remarks though the Steve
> Green languagifier and then try to pass the results off as if someone
> else used those words.
See above.
> > BTW, do you not realise how transparent it is that your use of language
> > - using big words and legalistic language when we're just discussing
> > something on Usenet, innit - shows that you're overcompensating? I'll
> > let you figure out what you're overcompensating for - I know, but I
> > doubt you'll thank me for saying so.
>
> You can carry on. No small man syndrome here.
What has small man syndrome got to do with you sending posts on here
that make you look like you've just swallowed a dictionary? Anyway,
people who overcompensate do so because they are or they consider
themselves to be lacking in the area that they overcompensate in. I'm
sure there's lots of links about it on Google if you're confused.
> >> No withdrawal necessary.
>
> >> And if it comes to a choice between believing JC that you made racist
> >> and homophobic remarks that you now refuse to allow to be aired, and
> >> believing your assertion that you didn't make those remarks, I trust
> >> him, no question.
>
> > Hahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahaaaa!!!!!!!!
>
> > Hillarious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > Sean, that is THE MOST SUPERFLUOUS thing you have EVER SAID ON HERE
> > EVER. No-one who has ever read one of your demented and obsessive posts
> > needs to be told that you would NEVER EVER take my word for ANYTHING.
>
> > Gordon Bennett, man, WTF?
>
> That only makes sense in SteveWorld where anyone opposed to your view is
> a liar and proof consists of no more than constant reference to your own
> demented theories and interpretation.
That is utter crap. It was so obvious that Cridland was just going to
come out with yet another lie that I'd imagine the only person reading
that blog that didn't spot it coming was you.
> >> The easiest way to have him withdraw the accusation is to allow your
> >> remarks to be published.
>
> >> Very simple.
>
> > See previous posts. The fact that you would trust him shows how
> > ridiculously obsessed and how warped your mind is.
>
> > Right, unless you've got something NEW to say, I suggest we leave it
> > here - I'm not expecting you to retract your dishonest accusation that
> > I'm a racist, because you are My Personal Stalker, so there's really
> > nothing to discuss.
>
> You can leave the dialog any time you like Steve.
>
> Not checking the thread in Google Groups is one way to help you kick the
> habit.
>
> Not referring to me apropos of nothing when you make a post is another
> way you can stop exposing your mania.
My "mania"?? Don't think so, Sean. The only reason I'm posting on here
now is to try and get you to retract your accusation of RACISM, which
happens to be a serious accusation that people shouldn't go around
making lightly, but that clearly didn't bother you.
You trying to pass the blame for your obsession isn't going to fool
anyone on here.
jamie powell
>
> Although your attacks on Jamie and the particular line you've taken there
> are just as repulsive as your treatment of the other poster you
> successfully hustled out of the group, I accept these could be
> interpreted as neutral to his sexuality. Jamie might feel otherwise, I
> couldn't say.
>
My feeling is that the little scumbag's remarks about my personal life have
homophobic undertones.
This is a tactic commonly employed by the modern meatheaded bigot - they'll
skirt around the issue of a homosexual relationship, and attack you on
literally anything but - firing multiple shots and leaving your metaphorical
dartboard covered with holes, but with the red target (representing
homosexuality) left untouched, meaning you can't accuse them of homophobia
(and if you do, they scream 'paranoia' and 'Daffyd complex' at you).
On these groups, Bill 'Gobshite' Wright does this a lot, too.
Self-deluded Steven hasn't hustled me out of the group though; it's just I've
been busy lately with real uni work (as opposed to his imaginary work), plus
I've had the flu.
I was also disappointed when people fell for his falsified exam results, even
though they were clearly the product of 10 minutes spent with an art/DTP
package and an inkjet printer.
Combine this with the fact that, no matter how many kindly members of the
public - let alone industry professionals - point out how sad, useless and
pathetic his behaviour actually is, self-deluded Steven's ego defaults back to
its original state within days, and one has to ask oneself "is he really worth
all the effort?".
I've decided it's best to just leave him sitting there in his mother's house,
tossing his head from side to side with conceit while typing out all his
rubbish, and just to hope people will know better than to ever trust him with
anything.
Relentless quacks like him have been around for a *long* time, and although
many have perished at their hands, the human race as a whole manages to
survive.
As for self-deluded Steven, time will pass sentence upon him if no-one else
does, because the empty and deprived life he chooses to lead will continue
until he dies.
DAB sounds worse than FM
>
> "seani" <inglis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7l2hupF...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> Although your attacks on Jamie and the particular line you've taken
>> there
>> are just as repulsive as your treatment of the other poster you
>> successfully hustled out of the group, I accept these could be
>> interpreted as neutral to his sexuality. Jamie might feel
>> otherwise, I
>> couldn't say.
>>
>
> My feeling is that the little scumbag's remarks about my personal
> life have homophobic undertones.
Yawn.
> This is a tactic commonly employed by the modern meatheaded bigot -
> they'll skirt around the issue of a homosexual relationship, and
> attack you on literally anything but
Yawn.
> - firing multiple shots and leaving your metaphorical dartboard
> covered with holes, but with the red target (representing
> homosexuality) left untouched, meaning you can't accuse them of
> homophobia (and if you do, they scream 'paranoia' and 'Daffyd
> complex' at you).
> On these groups, Bill 'Gobshite' Wright does this a lot, too.
Yawn.
> Self-deluded Steven hasn't hustled me out of the group though; it's
> just I've been busy lately with real uni work (as opposed to his
> imaginary work), plus I've had the flu.
Yawn.
> I was also disappointed when people fell for his falsified exam
> results,
Yawn.
> even though they were clearly the product of 10 minutes spent with
> an art/DTP package and an inkjet printer.
Yawn.
> Combine this with the fact that, no matter how many kindly members
> of the public - let alone industry professionals - point out how
> sad, useless and pathetic his behaviour actually is,
Yawn.
> self-deluded Steven's ego defaults back to its original state within
> days, and one has to ask oneself "is he really worth all the
> effort?".
Yawn.
> I've decided it's best to just leave him sitting there in his
> mother's house, tossing his head from side to side with conceit
> while typing out all his rubbish, and just to hope people will know
> better than to ever trust him with anything.
Yawn.
> Relentless quacks like him have been around for a *long* time, and
> although many have perished at their hands, the human race as a
> whole manages to survive.
Yawn.
> As for self-deluded Steven, time will pass sentence upon him if
> no-one else does, because the empty and deprived life he chooses to
> lead will continue until he dies.
Yawn.
Same old Jamie - never changes.
Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnn.
seani
> On Oct 31, 2:44 pm, seani <ingliss+s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:19:13 -0700, steve41 wrote:
>
>> >> The closest I've ever come to saying you're a racist is to say that
>> >> your racist remarks don't necessarily make you a racist. If you want
>> >> me to withdraw that opinion as inaccurate, consider it withdrawn.
>>
>> > What you need to prove is that I'm a racist, or withdraw the
>> > accusation. You have a lot of work to do. Run run, Sean.
>>
>> I don't need to prove it; I didn't make the accusation. I referred to
>> the fact that you made a racist remark. That statement won't be
>> withdrawn.
>
>
> This is what you wrote on Cridland's blog:
>
> "Readers of the 16th October edition of Private Eye – #1247 – may want
> to turn to page 19 and look at the responses of “Ben Bradshaw” in the
> “Me and My Spoon” column.
>
> Such an astonishingly close match of prose and ideology that you’d have
> to suspect it was the work of another noted BBC critic…
>
> It lacks the extra zip afforded by racism and homophobia, but you can’t
> have everything.
>
> Note: "racism and homophobia". You've retracted the homophobia
> accusation, but you haven't retracted the ****RACISM**** accusation.
>
> Now, ***PROVE*** that I'm a ***RACIST*** or retract that accusation.
>
> End of story.
>
Oh, now hold on, get is straight.
I've withdrawn my statement that you made homophobic remarks - could see
nothing overt at the time. But I have no particular position on any
homophobia you might display in general.
I haven't accused you of being a racist, but of making racist remarks.
That stands, your link alters nothing.
Neither do your **CAPITALS**.
>
>> >> The other rampant hypebole is all vocabulary you've brought into the
>> >> discussion, not me. You've made a virtual career out of doing this.
>>
>> >> It is a little bizarre, although not unprecedented, that the
>> >> accusations you object to are mostly inflated in their rancour by
>> >> your *own* exaggerations.
>>
>> > Speaking in riddles this time - can't you just speak in English like
>> > everybody else?
>>
>> Get a dictionary.
>
>
> It isn't the words I fail to understand, Sean, it's the fact that you
> provide no context, so until I perfect the power of reading your mind I
> haven't got the foggiest what you're going on about.
>
>
>> In simpler terms, the hysterical language that you say people have used
>> to claim you're a racist isn't generally speaking *theirs*, it's
>> *yours*.
>
>
> More seani delusions. In case you really have managed to forget what was
> said, here's the *first line* of the *first comment* posted by Cridland
> on his blog:
>
> "Ah, Steve Green, the well-known industry troll, homophobe and racist"
>
> I suggest you ponder on your suggestion that I've been "hysterical"
> about this, because it's a good example of how your mind warps things.
>
The exaggerated and hysterical language remains yours and not theirs.
Your quote is made a statement of fact. You refuse to allow posts to
settle the matter to be viewed.
Readers can weigh up in their own minds how likely your justification for
this is. I know I have.
There are few responses on that blog expressing the opinion that he's a
liar. They all seem to come from you. I note that they aren't edited or
censored.
Or do you claim they have been?
>
>> >> The easiest way to have him withdraw the accusation is to allow your
>> >> remarks to be published.
>>
>> >> Very simple.
>>
>> > See previous posts. The fact that you would trust him shows how
>> > ridiculously obsessed and how warped your mind is.
>>
>> > Right, unless you've got something NEW to say, I suggest we leave it
>> > here - I'm not expecting you to retract your dishonest accusation
>> > that I'm a racist, because you are My Personal Stalker, so there's
>> > really nothing to discuss.
>>
>> You can leave the dialog any time you like Steve.
>>
>> Not checking the thread in Google Groups is one way to help you kick
>> the habit.
>>
>> Not referring to me apropos of nothing when you make a post is another
>> way you can stop exposing your mania.
>
>
> My "mania"?? Don't think so, Sean. The only reason I'm posting on here
> now is to try and get you to retract your accusation of RACISM, which
> happens to be a serious accusation that people shouldn't go around
> making lightly, but that clearly didn't bother you.
>
> You trying to pass the blame for your obsession isn't going to fool
> anyone on here.
I'm not the one claiming to put someone in a killfile to ignore their
posts and then checking and posting through Google Groups.
I'm not the one who, in this thread, continues to say that he's too busy
to respond and he won't respond further but who can't conquer his
Pavlovian response.
I'm not the one who feels the need to bring his ancient grievances into
every post to try to get some sort of closure.
I'm not the one who felt the need to pursue James Cridland from post to
post haranguing him for perceived sleights even when he'd left his post
at the BBC.
There will be no retraction of racism. I have alluded to your plainly
racist remarks and explained my position on the possibility of your being
a racist per-se.
That's what you get.
If you give James Cridland the nod to publish your Media UK posts, I
might reconsider and I might retract if his accusation seems unfounded to
me.
Other than that, you can kiss my arse.
Language plain enough for you?
HD Radio Farce
wrote:
> http://radiotoday.co.uk/news.php?extend.5318
>
> Digital TV take-up apparently rocketed when they announced a date for
> TV switch off, yet they do the same for radio and digital radio
> listening falls quarter-on-quarter!!
>
> Poor DAB Industry Liars, they must be wondering what they have to do
> to make people buy this crap technology.
>
> lovely bunch of people: seani likes them, and he's a wonderful judge
> of character; and they're all, as seani puts it, "class acts", because
> they're all very honest, they're very, very technically competent
> (some would say they're gifted in this respect), and they're highly
> impartial with respect to which digital radio platform they want to
> inflict upon people.
>
> As I say, a great shame. I'm sure they'll still be able to switch off
> FM stations in 6 years and 2 months, though.
>
> Steve -www.savefm.org- stop the BBC bullies switching off FM
>
> www.digitalradiotech.co.uk- �digital radio news & info
>
> "It is the sheer volume of online audio content available via
> internet-connected devices which terrifies the UK radio industry. I
> believe that broadband-delivered radio will explode in the years to
> come, offering very local, unregulated content, as well as opening a
> window to the radio stations of the world." - from the Myers Report
I'm sure they share "tactics" with iBiquity's Bob Struble, and I know
iBiquity talks with the DRM folks.
Silk
your posting style on Usenet is just an act. If it is
> an act then I suggest you drop it, because you don't achieve
> *anything* by deliberately pissing people off non-stop.
This sounds suspiciously like you having a word with yourself. I hope
you listen.
bolta...@yahoo.co.uk
"jamie powell" <jami...@excite.com> wrote:
>I was also disappointed when people fell for his falsified exam results, even
>though they were clearly the product of 10 minutes spent with an art/DTP
>package and an inkjet printer.
FFS pal , just admit you were wrong on this and stop digging that hole.
You'll be waving the spade at some kangaroos soon.
B2003
Steve
You said this:
"It lacks the extra zip afforded by racism and homophobia, but you
can’t have everything"
That was aimed at me, so your remark OBVIOUSLY IMPLIED that I'm a
racist and a homophobe.
Now, either provide some evidence to show that I'm a racist, or
retract the accusation that I'm a racist. Simple as that.
****IF**** I could trust Cridland I would be happy for him to publish
any post made by me on his forum. But considering that EVERY
ACCUSATION he made about me on his blog was a blatant lie, it was so,
so obvious that he was just going to fabricate comments and pass them
off as being made by me so they would "show" that I'm a "racist" and a
"homophobe".
This more than anything else proves just how warped your view is of
anything relating to me, because I think it's obvious to everyone else
who followed that thread that that's what he was giong to do next, and
yet you *refuse* to see that.
This reminds me of the argument over that graph on The Register
article. I was right about that all along, but the thread about that
graph went on for about 2 weeks, and I had to jump through several
hoops along the way, and at the end of that, despite jumping through
all of your hoops, you still claimed that I'd used the graph
dishonestly.
I LITERALLY cannot win with you. Nothing I say EVER convinces you,
despite the fact that some of the things you accuse me of are so
ridiculous it makes me wonder about your sanity, to be quite honest.
So, I think I'll stop banging my head against a brick wall now if you
don't mind, and I'll leave you to enjoy the confines of my killfile,
Sean.
B-bye.
DAB sounds worse than FM
news:hcjn2n$clq$1...@aioe.org...
Well said! Doubt it'll do any good though, because he never listens to
anyone but himself.
jamie powell
Like most on usenet nowadays, you're obviously not an educated/professional
man.
When you're done lapping up self-deluded Steven's drivel, perhaps you'd care
for some herbal "medicine" from an "expert" practitioner?
Go on - all those certificates on his wall look really impressive. He must
really know his stuff!
DAB sounds worse than FM
If you haven't noticed, Boltaroften doesn't agree with me, so he
certainly does not "lap up" what I say.
The reality is that I very much doubt anyone other than you actually
thinks that I fabricated those degree certificates (and you're just
saying it to avoid having to admit you're wrong - you don't actually
believe it), and people are just sick of your incessant bullshit.
bolta...@yahoo.co.uk
"jamie powell" <jami...@excite.com> wrote:
>> FFS pal , just admit you were wrong on this and stop digging that hole.
>> You'll be waving the spade at some kangaroos soon.
>
>Like most on usenet nowadays, you're obviously not an educated/professional
>man.
*sigh*. Is this really the best you can do? FWIW I have a BSc in computer
science , and thats from a respected university back in the days when a BSc
actually meant something. And I first posted usenet news back in 1991 when
you were still dribbling onto your bib so theres no "nowawdays" about me
as far as being on here goes.
>When you're done lapping up self-deluded Steven's drivel, perhaps you'd care
As steve said , we hardly ever agree so yet again you're proving how
desperately you're digging that hole.
B2003
seani
I've said all I have to say on the matter as far as retractions are
concerned. If you want to remove any doubt that you're a racist in
future, take more care with your remarks. Simple as that.
The accusation that JC made stands as an accusation whether you "allow"
him to publish specific posts or not.
"Allowing" those posts to be published presents no danger to you. If you
claim they aren't your posts, you can say so in the blog that he owns and
runs and in which you've been allowed to post uncensored - and also here
of course.
Your fear is that there's more "comedy" that you believe may be
misinterpreted.
Those of us confident in our positions would shout "publish and be
damned" and loudly at that.
And the only one suffering imprisonment by and at the mercy of your
killfile is you Steve. I'm totally unaffected by it.